f(m: INT, n: INT): PF n == m::PF(n)
[f(100, n) for n in primes(1,100)]
Ask yourself, what type that list will have and you realise that Aldor
will reject that its compilation.
L := [PF(n) for n in primes(1,100)]
That is fine, though.
[a::P for P in L]
That is as problematic as the first list.
So, this amounts to clarifying the Aldor User guide. Quite a bit of work has
been done on this side. Consult the archives or ask specific questions on
aldor-devel.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to be precise.
BTW, I think that there is no SPAD language, only a SPAD implementation.
That's a good one. There is an implementation of a non-language. How
could someone have implemented that?
It is important we aim at "ideal expression", not just limited to what the
current SPAD or Aldor languages accept (hi Martin, Ralf).
I am all with you, Gaby, As you know, I would like to see support for
formal specification inside the language. An Aldor program should allow
to be fed to a proof checker, so I would like to be able to express
invariants and all that stuff formally and not just in the documentation.
However, I have the desire to target not just Lisp, but C, C++ and probably
Java or C#. There are interesting problems lurking there, but not none that
is urgent.
So, that's a point for FOAM :-)
I also think so. You can completely forget about Aldor if you just want
to generate different target languages. That is as I understand the foam
business.
Ralf
_______________________________________________
Axiom-developer mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
